The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology - Saint Mary ...

may be, explained by many, to signify no more than we above inculcate."
We understand the author in this to concede, not simply that they are so
explained, but that they are, in fact, susceptible of this explanation, and that
this may be really their meaning.
It is our sincere belief, that if the energy which has been expended in
assailing as doctrines taught by our Confessions what they do not teach,
had been devoted to ascertaining what is their real meaning, these years of
sad controversy would have been years of building up, and of closer union,
not years of conflict, years in which our ministry and members have had
their minds poisoned against the truth of God as held by our Church.
But, while there are apparent points of identity with the Church
doctrine in that of the Platform, there is one chasm in its theory which
nothing can bridge over, a contradiction of the most palpable and fatal
character. That vital defect is this, that while this theory secures the
forgiveness of an infant's sins, it makes no provision whatever for the
change of its sinful nature. While it provides for its exemption from
penalty, it leaves utterly out of sight the correction of its depravity, which is
a more fearful thing than the penalty which follows it; for in the pure
judgment of sanctified reason, it would be better to be holy and yet bear
the penalty of sin, than to be sinful and have the immunities of holiness;
better to be sinless, although in hell, than to be polluted and in heaven. The
theory concedes that there is in "infants a moral disqualification for
heaven." It absolutely needs, therefore, before an infant can have a pledge
in Baptism of its salvation, that there shall be a pledge provided for its
moral qualification for heaven, and this moral qualification must be
REGENERATION.
But the theory not only does not provide for this, but as far as it is
stated in the Platform, absolutely excludes it. It says, "Baptism in infants is
a pledge of the forgiveness of sins," but it says not a word of the removal
of sins in whole or in part. The cardinal defect, therefore,- is, that it
provides a pledge that the blessings which follow regeneration shall be
given, but provides none that the regeneration itself shall be